[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10118

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DEKORRIE K. BELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION, 

Defendant- Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00477-MHH

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10118

Before LAGOA, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

DeKorrie Bell, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of 

her case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Bell filed a complaint against the Birmingham Board of Education (“the Board”) in federal court using the pro se general complaint form for civil cases. On the form, she checked the box designating “Constitutional or Federal Question” as the basis for jurisdiction, listed “title IV Civil Rights Act 1962 42 USC 2000 obstruction of Justice” as the basis for the federal court’s jurisdiction, and 

sought $40 million in damages. The district court, however, found 

that Bell failed to allege any facts establishing that it had subject 

matter jurisdiction and dismissed her case without prejudice. 

We liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, holding 

them “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 

2014). However, this liberal construction does not mean a court 

must serve as de facto counsel for the pro se party, nor does it oblige 

the court to rewrite a deficient pleading to sustain the action. Id. 

at 1168-69. Issues not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are 

deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 

2008).

We review de novo a district court’s determination that it 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168. The 

USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 2 of 4
23-10118 Opinion of the Court 3

party bringing the claim bears the burden of establishing that the 

district court has subject matter jurisdiction. Williams v. Poarch 

Band of Creek Indians, 839 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2016). Federal 

courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and are empowered 

to hear only those cases within its statutory or constitutional authority. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Thus, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases raising federal 

questions or cases involving diverse citizens where the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

“If jurisdiction is based on either of these, the pleader must affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction and 

include a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the 

court’s jurisdiction depends.” Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). Without such 

allegations, the court must dismiss the action if the plaintiff does 

not cure the deficiency. Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 

1268 (11th Cir. 2013); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (explaining 

that a court must dismiss an action once it determines that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction). 

As an initial matter, Bell does not challenge the district 

court’s conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in her 

brief, meaning she has abandoned that issue on appeal. Timson, 518 

F.3d at 874. Nevertheless, considering Bell’s pro se status, we will 

review the district court’s dismissal of Bell’s complaint for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Upon such review, we conclude that 

the district court did not err in dismissing Bell’s case for that reason. 

Bell’s pro se complaint failed to allege facts establishing either 

USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10118

federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the district court’s dismissal of Bell’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-10118 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023 Page: 4 of 4